Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 461 - HC - Income TaxRejection of declaration filed by the petitioner under section 4 of the DTVSV Act, 2020 - HELD THAT:- Assessment orders for respective years were served on the petitioner on 12th January 2019. The petitioner on 7th April 2019, filed appeal along-with application for condonation of delay challenging said orders. The delay has been condoned vide order dated 24th February, 2021, meaning thereby that the appeals challenging assessment orders were pending on the specified date i.e.; 31st January 2020 in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Karan Ventakeshwara Associates [2021 (6) TMI 1008 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] The respondent No.3, therefore, could not have rejected the declaration filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the Circular No.21/2020 on the ground that the right conferred under Section 2(1)(a)(i) cannot be limited by a clarificatory order in the manner it has been done. The clarification cannot add new qualifications beyond the provisions of the DTVSV Act, 2020 and that clarification can only operate within contours specified in the DTVSV Act, 2020. Question No.59 in the said circular deals with the situation where time limit for filing appeal has expired during the period from 1st April, 2019 to 31st January, 2020 and appeal having been admitted prior to 31st January, 2020. The petitioner has challenged said clarification on the ground that filing appeal with application for condonation of delay is within the control of petitioner but, its decision is not. In the present case, the assessment orders were served on petitioner on 12th January 2019. The period of limitation for filing appeal is 30 days, therefore appeal ought to have been filed prior to 11th February, 2019. The said date 11th February, 2019 is prior to the period prescribed under Ques. No.59, being period from 1st April, 2019 to 31st January, 2020. These facts would raise a doubt about applicability of the circular dated 4th December, 2020 to the case of the petitioner. In any case, having found action of rejection of declarations by respondent No.3 being bad-in-law, we do not propose to examine this challenge now. The challenge therefore is kept open for decision in appropriate proceeding. It will have to be held that the rejection of declaration filed by the petitioner under section 4 of the DTVSV Act, 2020 is bad-in-law. Similarly, the impugned communication dated 29th January, 2020 is liable to be quashed and set aside.The petition is thus partly allowed. The action of rejection of the declarations filed by the petitioner under Section 4 of DTVSV Act, 2020 is held to be bad-in-law.
|